Freedom of Conscience, Tudor Style

SEAN MURPHY

"No opposition, I say!" he roared. "No opposition! Your conscience is your own affair, but you are my Chancellor!"

Thomas More1478-1535

"Thomas, Ill have no opposition," warned Henry VIII in A Man for All Seasons. The scene in Robert Bolts play takes place in Sir Thomas Mores garden.Henry has just learned that More does not support his plans to unmake his marriage.

"No opposition, I say!" he roared. "No opposition! Your conscience is your own affair, but you are my Chancellor!"

"Ill leave you out of it," growls the king. "But I dont take it kindly, Thomas, and Ill have no opposition!. . . Lie low if you will, but Ill brook no opposition no words, no signs, no letters, no pamphlets mind that, Thomas no writings against me!"1

Freedom of conscience, Tudor style.

Sound familiar? In Canada, we call it "party discipline" and "cabinet solidarity."

A Man for All Seasons follows More as he resigns his office and retires to private life, avoiding comment upon the Kings marriage. But, ultimately, lying low isnt enough. Mores silence, complains Thomas Cromwell, "is bellowing up and down Europe,"2 and, whats worse, Henry can hear it. "The Kings a man of conscience,"says Cromwell, "and he wants either Sir Thomas More to bless his marriage or Sir Thomas More destroyed."3

It took three more years to accomplish Mores destruction, for new laws were needed to indict such disturbers of the kings conscience. Unlike Canadian superior court judges, even Henry VIII could not ignore parliament or single-handedly make and unmake the law of the land.

Though still married to Catherine of Aragon, Henry had a private wedding ceremony with Anne Boleyn in January, 1533. The Archbishop of Canterbury later declared the marriage of Henry and Catherine invalid, and the Act of Succession was passed in March, 1534, to ensure that their progeny could legally succeed to the throne.

But the Act of Succession also asserted that Henry had not been truly married to Catherine and declared his marriage to Anne Boleyn valid. It made it treason to question or speak against the marriage of Henry and Anne, and almost treason to criticize the Act itself. Finally, citizens were required to swear an oath to defend the full contents of the Act, including its statements about marriage. "Almost immediately," wrote Richard Marius, a biographer of More, "the English people were subjected to a swarm of commissioners buzzing through the country to administer the oath to everyone they could find."4

In April, 1534, More refused the oath and was imprisoned in the Tower of London. Thomas Cromwell and his minions closed remaining legal loopholes with the passage of three more statutes, among them the Act of Supremacy, which pronounced Henry the "only Supreme Head on earth of the Church in England." The law claimed its first victims in May, 1535. More was beheaded two months later, and others followed.

All of this to serve the personal dreams and aspirations of Henry VIII. He wanted recognition of his children by Anne as his legal successors, but he also demanded public and universal affirmation that his relationship with Anne Boleyn was worthy of the same respect and recognition as his marriage to Catherine. He got his way by having parliament pass statutes that not only defined marriage in his terms, but punished any expression of opposition.

Sir Thomas More was jailed because he was suspected of misprision of treason of having treasonous intentions. Some human rights laws now make it unlawful to indicate an intention to discriminate.

Jay Budziszewski ascribes this frantic effort to silence all opposition to the revenge of conscience. The law written on the human heart cannot be obliterated. It can be denied, but the reproach of conscience at the deepest levels never, ever stops.5 That is why even Mores silence was, finally, intolerable; it was less than acceptance, less than approval. "If you cannot convert your critics by argument," writes historian John Thomas Noonan, "at least by law you can make them recognize that your course is the course of the country."6

Canada is following in Henrys footsteps. Judges tell us that to deny persons of the same sex the right to marry would be "a rejection of their personal aspirations and the denial of their dreams."7 They assert that same-sex couples may not be "excluded" from marrying because that would mean their relationships are "not worthy of the same respect and recognition as opposite-sex relationships."8 Citing the rule of law, these judges are demanding public and universal affirmation that there is no moral difference between homosexual and heterosexual conduct, that both are "worthy of the same respect and recognition," and they are demanding that all citizens unconditionally accept their definition of marriage.

Canadians who oppose the marriage bill need not fear imprisonment or execution if Martins bill passes, and there are no plans to compel us to swear allegiance to the new order. But there is good reason to expect the kind of pervasive legal persecution and oppression visited upon Tudor England. It will look different in 21st century Canada, for when history repeats itself it adopts the costumes and customs the age.

Sir Thomas More was jailed because he was suspected of misprision of treason of having treasonous intentions. Some human rights laws now make it unlawful to indicate an intention to discriminate.9 BC teacher Chris Kempling ran afoul of this when he spoke publicly against homosexual conduct in response to others including other teachers who were speaking in favour of it. He was charged for professional misconduct and is threatened with suspension for indicating an intention to discriminate. Call it misprision of discrimination.

The judge who rejected Kemplings appeal clearly holds that authentic Christian teaching that proscribes homosexual conduct is a lie; that it is not merely derogatory, but harmful and damaging; that it is wrong, and that those who articulate such teachings deserve to be punished.10 It is reasonable to expect that the same accusations will be hurled by judges against Christian teaching on marriage.

If we will not be allowed to speak publicly, what about conscientious objection?

Ask the Catholic high school principal ordered by a judge to let a homosexually active student bring his date to a school dance.11 Ask Scott Brockie, a Christian printer fined and ordered to serve Gay and Lesbian Archives of Canada,12 an organization that not only promotes homosexual conduct but promotes pro-paedophilia literature.13 Ask the marriage commissioners who have already been ordered to resign if they will not perform services for persons of the same sex.14 Ask the Knights of Columbus, sued by lesbians because they refused to rent their hall to them for a wedding reception.15

Judges are demanding that every citizen submit to their ideas about sexuality and marriage. Like Robert Bolts Henry, they will brook no opposition to the new order. They will not send objectors to jail or to the scaffold, but they will fine them, award monetary judgements against them, see them suspended or fired, force their schools to close, and order that all children be taught their new doctrines. And this government applaud, because Paul Martin has chosen to serve these judges rather than the people who elected him: to play the part of Thomas Cromwell rather than Thomas More.

"In a letter Tuesday, B.C. Commissioners were given an ultimatum from the B.C. Vital Statistics Agency, which stated that any Commissioner who feels that they cannot solemnize same-sex marriages must resign their appointments by March 31. The letter gave no details about what would happen if a Commissioner refused to step down." VANCOUVER, January 23, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com)

Acknowledgement

Catholic Civil Rights League assists in creating conditions within which Catholic teachings can be better understood, cooperates with other organizations in defending civil rights in Canada, and opposes defamation and discrimination against Catholics on the basis of their beliefs. The Catholic Civil Rights League is a Canadian non-profit organization entirely supported by the generosity of its members.

The Author

Sean Murphy is a Catholic layman. He has made a special study of the documents of the Second Vatican Council and Catholic teaching on sexuality and marriage. His paper on the nuptial meaning of the Eucharist was among three chosen for presentation at the 1993 conference of the Canadian Fellowship of Catholic Scholars, and later published in the conference proceedings. His articles have appeared in Catholic periodicals, including the BC Catholic,Catholic Insight magazine and the Journal of the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars (Canada). Others are posted on the Internet at the Catholic Education Resource Center, Catholic Exchange and the Catholic Civil Rights League website. His comments and responses to attacks on religious freedom and Catholic teaching have appeared in the media, including some BC community papers, the Vancouver Sun, The Province, Xtra West, the Ottawa Citizen, Halifax Daily News, the BC Catholic, and Christian Week. Mr. Murphy retired from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in 2009 after almost 35 years' police service. While not a specialist in sexual assault, during the course of his service he was responsible for the investigation of current and historical sex crimes against children and adults (including false allegations), leading, in one case, to the conviction of a Catholic priest. This article should not be understood to represent the views of the RCMP or its members.